NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that Israel is way out of control. Yes, this is my opinion, however it is shared by many other people who are not anti-Semites. (myself included)

I know I don't post here very often anymore but I am getting a little tired of that same old song always being sung by us here in the west.

There is currently a resolution that was passed wayyyy back after Israel's land grab of the Golan Heights for them to return the land without delay to Syria. There have been quite a few UN resolutions passed AGAINST Israel. (Although the lions's share do get vetoed by the United States) None the less, there are many UN resolutions that have PASSED against Israel, to which Israel has ignored each and everyone of them to date!

So when I see and hear Israel trying to tout res. 1559 it makes me sick! Hypocrisy at it's best folks.

I supports Israel's right to exist. What I don't support is that Israel can or has done no wrong, because that would be an outright LIE!

It is my belief that if Israel truly wanted peace they would return the occupied lands back to the rightful owners. (Arabs) But do we see them doing that? No! Arab countries occupy NO Israeli land... but they're the bad guys?? Please give me a freaking break!

Israel has broken more international laws in the last 40 odd years than you can shake a stick at! They are NOT innocent here!

Perhaps peace can come to Israel and their Arab neighbours, but ONLY if Israel is willing to give back ALL of the land it has stolen and occupies and in most cases occupies it illegally.

Hezbollah may not have the high ground in this current conflict, but either does Israel by a long shot.

Hezbollah unlike what most of us view as "terrorists" are not. In fact very few countries list them as so. Russia doesn't list them and neither does the E. U. No, Hezbollah may have thought it was business as usual, that goes on between Hezbollah and Israel all the time..Israel kidnaps their members and Hezbollah kidnaps Israel's members and then they do an exchange like in 2004. Just like they have always done.

This time, Israel is off the hook! There needs to be an end to this now, not later. Cease-Fire NOW!

* please no flaming *

A good deal of the No Questions Asked Israeli Supporters are also Evangelical Apocalyptics cheering on The Second Coming.

Perhaps peace can come to Israel and their Arab neighbours, but ONLY if Israel is willing to give back ALL of the land it has stolen and occupies and in most cases occupies it illegally.


How often have you heard of countries winning wars and then returning the land they gained? I don't see Mexicans blowing things up in Colorado, Texas, California, etc... demanding the return of the 1/3rd of Mexico the USA stole through aggressive warfare. Nor do I see Spaniards and Argentines firing rockets into downtown London over Gibraltar and the Falklands.

How often have you heard of countries winning wars and then returning the land they gained? I don't see Mexicans blowing things up in Colorado, Texas, California, etc... demanding the return of the 1/3rd of Mexico the USA stole through aggressive warfare. Nor do I see Spaniards and Argentines firing rockets into downtown London over Gibraltar and the Falklands.
Your analogy fails on the grounds that Israel didn't start it's wars. The US on the other hand did (but you are right about the Falklands.)

We have only ourselves to blame. We were the ones who gave Israel more land after WWII. And look how that sorted out. Hell, we even founded Iraq and now most of Iraq hates us. As the famous saying goes:

"You can conquer Asia, but you can never control it" (Gertrude Bell, Famous British Explorer/Spy)

Perhaps peace can come to Israel and their Arab neighbours, but ONLY if Israel is willing to give back ALL of the land it has stolen and occupies and in most cases occupies it illegally.

Unfortunately, that won't happen because Israel is mostly Jewish while the Middle East is a Muslim state.

Your analogy fails on the grounds that Israel didn't start it's wars. The US on the other hand did (but you are right about the Falklands.)

Six-Day War, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)

Six-Day War, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)
The Egyptian and Syrian Armies ahd fully mobilized. They were a few days away from attacking. Israel had to preempt to avoid anihilation. Even Nasser later said that they were preparing to attack Israel. I recommend you read the book "Six Days of War." It really has good info on the war.

The Egyptian and Syrian Armies ahd fully mobilized. They were a few days away from attacking. Israel had to preempt to avoid anihilation. Even Nasser later said that they were preparing to attack Israel. I recommend you read the book "Six Days of War." It really has good info on the war.

In other words, The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine at work. "LOOK OUT IT'S HEADED RIGHT FOR US!!'

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

This time, Israel is off the hook! There needs to be an end to this now, not later. Cease-Fire NOW!

* please no flaming *

Nice to see you back, Steph. :)

In any case, I think the whole thing is a fine example of the old saw "it takes two to tango". Both sides have been allowing the conflict to continue for years, and as long as they continue to do so there will not be peace in the Middle East.

The only wars Israel didn’t start were in 48 and 73 - they started the others.

48 was contentious because the creation of Israel was opposed by most people in the region, and quiet frankly I do not think “God said we could” is sufficient reason for anything, much less occupying territory.

73 was an attempt to reclaim territory Israel was illegally occupying – and thus I have a hard time condemning the start of it.

So basically, 1948 was a legitimate instance of Israel not being on the wrong side of the issue. 56 was an appalling act, 67 was a little better but still wrong, 73 they had coming as they laughed at their neighbors requesting the return of their lands (it should be noted that they gave negotiations 6 years or work before getting tired of being insulted and humiliated by Israel, attacking only after years of negotiations failing), 82 Israel was in the wrong again and they deserved to get beaten back out.

People criticize the Lebanese for not risking their lives and country to route out those Israel doesn’t like – yet Hezbollah does a lot of charity work, while Israel commits a lot of humanitarian atrocities. Are you really going to risk plunging your country back into civil war for the sake of a country that has invaded your territory and massacred your people? Arial Sharon barely escaped being tried for war crimes for what he did to the Lebanese people, yet these same people were supposed to risk themselves for his country?

One of the reasons why Israel is doing this is posturing of Olmert – he has to prove he can be as tough as Sharon despite his lack of military experience. This lack of experience is also why he thinks he can succeed by bombing the Lebanese people. A little collective punishment which is quite counter-productive from the Israeli point of view (unless they are trying to spark a larger war).

One of the reasons why Israel is doing this is posturing of Olmert – he has to prove he can be as tough as Sharon despite his lack of military experience. This lack of experience is also why he thinks he can succeed by bombing the Lebanese people. A little collective punishment which is quite counter-productive from the Israeli point of view (unless they are trying to spark a larger war).

Basically the Guilty Machismo Complex as displayed by Dear Leader in the past.

This can only bode woe for Israel and the Middle East.

It seems to me that Israel is way out of control. Yes, this is my opinion, however it is shared by many other people who are not anti-Semites. (myself included) when did that border crossed?

I know I don't post here very often anymore but I am getting a little tired of that same old song always being sung by us here in the west.

There is currently a resolution that was passed wayyyy back after Israel's land grab of the Golan Heights for them to return the land without delay to Syria. There have been quite a few UN resolutions passed AGAINST Israel. (Although the lions's share do get vetoed by the United States) None the less, there are many UN resolutions that have PASSED against Israel, to which Israel has ignored each and everyone of them to date! the UN is so biased they vote in favour comaring zionism to racism. they are many reasons why they can't tell us what to do, wjile they only blame us.

So when I see and hear Israel trying to tout res. 1559 it makes me sick! Hypocrisy at it's best folks. unlike the hypocrisy of the arab who want cease-fire when they can attack us, but we can't defend ourselves.

I supports Israel's right to exist. What I don't support is that Israel can or has done no wrong, because that would be an outright LIE! we can do wrong, but this is legitmate operation.

It is my belief that if Israel truly wanted peace they would return the occupied lands back to the rightful owners. (Arabs) But do we see them doing that? No! Arab countries occupy NO Israeli land... but they're the bad guys?? Please give me a freaking break! and if the arabs were really want peace they may take israeli proposals in the past, stop supporting terror, and agree to compromise.
also, while they say that each israeli land is occupied arab territory, there aren't base for nagotiation.

Israel has broken more international laws in the last 40 odd years than you can shake a stick at! They are NOT innocent here! the arabs broke any human right or international law, but the biased UN won't do nothing about it.

Perhaps peace can come to Israel and their Arab neighbours, but ONLY if Israel is willing to give back ALL of the land it has stolen and occupies and in most cases occupies it illegally. which by the "nice guys" from iran, al-qaida, hamas, hizbulla and most of the other arab states mean the jews end in the sea (or austria by ahmedinigad proposal).

Hezbollah may not have the high ground in this current conflict, but either does Israel by a long shot.israel has such high moral ground in this fight, so we even aren't on the same league.

Hezbollah unlike what most of us view as "terrorists" are not. In fact very few countries list them as so. Russia doesn't list them and neither does the E. U. No, Hezbollah may have thought it was business as usual, that goes on between Hezbollah and Israel all the time..Israel kidnaps their members and Hezbollah kidnaps Israel's members and then they do an exchange like in 2004. Just like they have always done. always done and make more terror. how many times you should try "solution" until you admit it dosen't work?
also, the russian "democracy" has know for supporting oppressive regimes and sell weaponary to syria, iran and other (big percent of that passed to the terror organization). besides, we even didn't do quarter from what they did to the chechenies.

This time, Israel is off the hook! There needs to be an end to this now, not later. Cease-Fire NOW!
first 1559, than cease-fire.

Six-Day War, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)

Seems to me Israel responded to Egyptian naval blockades and the massing of troops on the borders.

On a different note, the ancient tribes that later formed the cultural group known today as "The Jews" had always resided in modern day Israel. It was always their land. It wasn't taken from the Arabs at the end of World War 2, because they traditionally )if you go far back enough) never owned it.

Seems to me Israel responded to Egyptian naval blockades and the massing of troops on the borders.

If a blockade and a massing of military forces is a declaration of war, following that logic the Soviet Union would have had legal rights to nuke the shit out of the U.S. for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[quote]So basically, 1948 was a legitimate instance of Israel not being on the wrong side of the issue. 56 was an appalling act, 67 was a little better but still wrong, 73 they had coming as they laughed at their neighbors requesting the return of their lands (it should be noted that they gave negotiations 6 years or work before getting tired of being insulted and humiliated by Israel, attacking only after years of negotiations failing), 82 Israel was in the wrong again and they deserved to get beaten back out. 56 was start because of preasure of britain and france, 67 were preemtive action (although wasn't used diplomatically), and 82 was mostly wrong.

People criticize the Lebanese for not risking their lives and country to route out those Israel doesn’t like – yet Hezbollah does a lot of charity work, while Israel commits a lot of humanitarian atrocities. Are you really going to risk plunging your country back into civil war for the sake of a country that has invaded your territory and massacred your people? Arial Sharon barely escaped being tried for war crimes for what he did to the Lebanese people, yet these same people were supposed to risk themselves for his country?if they won't risk themselves for israel, they risk themselves by israel and they knew that. there was standing UN decision and legitimate cause for the operation.

One of the reasons why Israel is doing this is posturing of Olmert – he has to prove he can be as tough as Sharon despite his lack of military experience. This lack of experience is also why he thinks he can succeed by bombing the Lebanese people. A little collective punishment which is quite counter-productive from the Israeli point of view (unless they are trying to spark a larger war).
it isn't collective punishment, but ulmert did try to show thoughness.
if you aren't though in the middle east, you dead.

56 was start because of preasure of britain and france

"Pressure"? Israel was quite glad to cooperate with Britain and France, it meant two useful allies. The leadership recognized early on that the more outside help they got, the better.

it isn't collective punishment, but ulmert did try to show thoughness.
if you aren't [thorough] in the middle east, [you're] dead.

Yet when Hamas, Hezbullah and Iran are trying to be thorough, it's Terrorism.

If a blockade and a massing of military forces is a declaration of war, following that logic the Soviet Union would have had legal rights to nuke the shit out of the U.S. for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
the cuban missle crisis was started by the soviets. you can't be the agressor and use agression to start war, at the same time.

"Pressure"? Israel was quite glad to cooperate with Britain and France, it meant two useful allies. The leadership recognized early on that the more outside help they got, the better.
it wasn't israel interest. it was more diplomatic interest to gain allies.

the cuban missle crisis was started by the soviets. you can't be the agressor and use agression to start war, at the same time.

Um, no. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a response by Castro and the Soviet Union following the debacle we all know as The Bay of Pigs. Get your facts straight.

it wasn't israel interest. it was more diplomatic interest to gain allies.

That may be. Israel's leadership has not always acted according to its interest.

Yet when Hamas, Hezbullah and Iran are trying to be thorough, it's Terrorism.
they aren't try to show thougness, they try to destruct israel.

they aren't try to show thougness, they try to destruct israel.

Why do you think Hezbollah attacked Haifa?

Um, no. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a response by Castro and the Soviet Union following the debacle we all know as The Bay of Pigs. Get your facts straight.
still, the cold war had threat equality. any nation know that if he destruct the other, she would be destructed too.
if israel do nothing in reaction to hizbulla atack, there isn't threat equality.

they aren't try to show thougness, they try to destruct israel.

And yet for all their attempts at "destroying Israel" they've hit less civilians overall than the IDF has trying to "neutralize" Hezbullah. And before you give the old canard about precision guided weapons and human shields, Israel does have special forces units with snipers amongst the cadre that can pick off targets if they felt like it.

still, the cold war had threat equality. any nation know that if he destruct the other, she would be destructed too.
if israel do nothing in reaction to hizbulla atack, there isn't threat equality.

Trying to move the goalpost now? The point I was refuting was "Blockade and Mobilization = Declaration of War" by saying that in that case the Soviet Union would have been justified in opening up with its MIRVs and military forces in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Why do you think Hezbollah attacked Haifa?
he knew the israeli sensitivity to human lives (we aren't share with them), and he think that it is our weakness, the terrorists believe we will break and surrender while there will be many casualities and dammage (spider net analogy).
if there will be cease fire without the 1559 take into action, they see it as victory for the terror.

when did that border crossed?

I would say when you occupied, and siezed any foreign territories.


the UN is so biased they vote in favour comaring zionism to racism. they are many reasons why they can't tell us what to do, wjile they only blame us.

Primarily, becuase powerful nations like America constantly veto any attempt to make your country behave itself.


unlike the hypocrisy of the arab who want cease-fire when they can attack us, but we can't defend ourselves.

Dont pretend like Isreal is harmless.
Furthermore, do not pretend to be blameless.
Is your side being completely honest regarding innocent civillian casualties?
Has any attempt to negotiate peace, been seriously considered regarding a Palestinian State?
Why does Isreal not return the Golan Heights, or the Gaza Strip, or any other territory it has occupied?


we can do wrong, but this is legitmate operation.

Legitimate, like Iraq invading Kuwait, in 1991?

Defense of your nation is legitimate, invasion of another soveriegn nation is not.


and if the arabs were really want peace they may take israeli proposals in the past, stop supporting terror, and agree to compromise.
also, while they say that each israeli land is occupied arab territory, there aren't base for nagotiation.

What proposals?
How many fair and decent proposals to the Palestinians has Isreal made, and then kept thier word at the bargaining table?


the arabs broke any human right or international law, but the biased UN won't do nothing about it.

Once again, it seems as though Isreal has broken more treaties, and cease-fires than any of thier enemies.
Not that Isreal is entirely to blame.
However...I dont give a crap what anyone in the past did to you.
I dont care if "God" has decided where you can and cannot live.
Your nations CURRENT actions are reprehensible.
Two wrongs, do not make a right, and any attempt to make exscuses for those actions, is nothing more than a weak exscuse.



israel has such high moral ground in this fight, so we even aren't on the same league.

Isreal lost any, and all "moral high ground", the moment it broke its first peace agreement.
When you use the tactics of the evil enemy....you yourself become evil.


always done and make more terror. how many times you should try "solution" until you admit it dosen't work?

How about making a decent concession at the bargaining table for starters?


also, the russian "democracy" has know for supporting oppressive regimes and sell weaponary to syria, iran and other (big percent of that passed to the terror organization). besides, we even didn't do quarter from what they did to the chechenies.

Once again you make reference to the deeds of others, to make exscuses for your nations behavior.
Take responsibility for your own actions, before laying claim to any such moral grounds.

And yet for all their attempts at "destroying Israel" they've hit less civilians overall than the IDF has trying to "neutralize" Hezbullah. And before you give the old canard about precision guided weapons and human shields, Israel does have special forces units with snipers amongst the cadre that can pick off targets if they felt like it.
snipers are good for limited targets. you can't destroy organization by snipers.
anyway, if israel will do that the same people will condemn us on "illegal action on foriegn land", and we will be on the start point (in the good case).

he knew the israeli sensitivity to human lives (we aren't share with them), and he think that it is our weakness, the terrorists believe we will break and surrender while there will be many casualities and dammage (spider net analogy).
if there will be cease fire without the 1559 take into action, they see it as victory for the terror.

No, they don't. Nasrallah is not an idiot. He underestimated Israel's response to capturing the soldiers, but I doubt he thinks that bombing Haifa will solve anything in terms of making Israel cower.

Hezbollah did it because it helps them with the Lebanese. It gives them the impression of being tough, of doing something about the attacks on the country. It generates support for them because it fulfills the anger and desire for vengeance on the part of people who have been attacked by Israel again and again for decades.

And you know what? Olmert is doing exactly the same thing for pretty much the same reasons.

The whole affair is disgusting, and the conduct of both sides has been abhorrent.

Trying to move the goalpost now? The point I was refuting was "Blockade and Mobilization = Declaration of War" by saying that in that case the Soviet Union would have been justified in opening up with its MIRVs and military forces in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Blockade and Mobilization were some of the reasons. there were also information on invading plans and threats of destruction before 67 war.

snipers are good for limited targets. you can't destroy organization by snipers.
anyway, if israel will do that the same people will condemn us on "illegal action on foriegn land", and we will be on the start point (in the good case).

If Israel actually gave a shit about being condemned for "illegal actions on foreign land" it would have never started the bombings or the mobilization in the first place. Nor would the debacle we like to call Operation Wrath of God gotten off the ground.

And snipers- especially trained by supposedly the best military in the Middle East- are very good at taking out particular targets, why else would they be in place for hostage situations otherwise? They could pick off the artillery operators from a reasonably good distance and concealment.

No, they don't. Nasrallah is not an idiot. He underestimated Israel's response to capturing the soldiers, but I doubt he thinks that bombing Haifa will solve anything in terms of making Israel cower.underestimated is in other words "think we are weak and will surrender to his demands when the first casualities willl come". that is my point

Hezbollah did it because it helps them with the Lebanese. It gives them the impression of being tough, of doing something about the attacks on the country. It generates support for them because it fulfills the anger and desire for vengeance on the part of people who have been attacked by Israel again and again for decades. they weren't attacked after we pullout from lebanon before 6 years. why he kidnapped the soldiers in the first place?

Blockade and Mobilization were some of the reasons. there were also information on invading plans and threats of destruction before 67 war.

Again I refute the "Blockage and Mobilization = Declaration of War" defense by pointing out the Soviets didn't take the Cuban Missile crisis as such or the continental US would be smaller geographically. And by that extension, I refute IDF's claim that Israel firing the first shot in the Six-Day War was not Israel starting a war.

underestimated is in other words "think we are weak and will surrender to his demands when the first casualities willl come". that is my point

No, it wasn't that. He didn't expect the level of response he got at all.

they weren't attacked after we pullout from lebanon before 6 years.

There have been Israeli air attacks throughout those six years. Not on par with the eighteen-year occupation, perhaps, but not nothing either.

why he kidnapped the soldiers in the first place?

It was an incredibly idiotic thing to do, I'll give you that. But he did it to secure the release of prisoners from Israeli jails. And the timing was clearly intended to indicate support for the Gazans.

If Israel actually gave a shit about being condemned for "illegal actions on foreign land" it would have never started the bombings or the mobilization in the first place. Nor would the debacle we like to call Operation Wrath of God gotten off the ground.first, I am secular don't try to enter words in my mouth.
second, you miss the point. israel gave shit for condemenation because they are one-sided biased and we get them on any little action we try to do (not included suicide actions that will destruct us).

And snipers- especially trained by supposedly the best military in the Middle East- are very good at taking out particular targets, why else would they be in place for hostage situations otherwise? They could pick off the artillery operators from a reasonably good distance and concealment.which mean invading operation so they will be closer to the operation range.
which would also be condemn

Again I refute the "Blockage and Mobilization = Declaration of War" defense by pointing out the Soviets didn't take the Cuban Missile crisis as such or the continental US would be smaller geographically. And by that extension, I refute IDF's claim that Israel firing the first shot in the Six-Day War was not Israel starting a war.
it WAS start of war, but it WASN'T willingfully start. it was preemptive strike when they aren't ready to war that was going to start any day.

first, I am secular don't try to enter words in my mouth.
second, you miss the point. israel gave shit for condemenation because they are one-sided biased and we get them on any little action we try to do (not included suicide actions that will destruct us).

which mean invading operation so they will be closer to the operation range.
which would also be condemn

Wrong answer. Israel does not give a shit, period.

Nothing says "we care" like those new settlements coming along nicely.

Nothing says "we care" like raining bombs on those Lebanese civilians, but as long as you're not aiming at them directly it's okay if the blast radius kills them.

Nothing says "we care" like mobilizing ground forces and going into Southern Lebanon.

No, it wasn't that. He didn't expect the level of response he got at all.
as I said he think we will negotiate with him like the former times, because we "weak".


There have been Israeli air attacks throughout those six years. Not on par with the eighteen-year occupation, perhaps, but not nothing either.there were border clashes on small range, as reaction to their acts. nothing that give them excuse for this kidnapping and the former kidnapping before 3 years.



It was an incredibly idiotic thing to do, I'll give you that. But he did it to secure the release of prisoners from Israeli jails. And the timing was clearly intended to indicate support for the Gazans.
anyway, it was more to strengh his organization, than to help the lebannese.

The whole affair is disgusting, and the conduct of both sides has been abhorrent.
Hear, hear!

Um, no. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a response by Castro and the Soviet Union following the debacle we all know as The Bay of Pigs. Get your facts straight.
Umm not quite. Books are awesome. The Cuban Missle Crisis was partly a grab for more security by Castro, but the Soviets needed someplace in America's back hard to base short range nuclear missles. Much like those America surrounded the USSR with. Had World War III been fought that day Europe would be a smoking ruin as would Russia, but the Americas (sans Cuba) would have soldierd bravely onward eventually. No doubt this is why Europeans had such a low opinion of the American brinksmanship in the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all should not the Americans share equally in the risk of annihilation? Appearently not. This of course greatly increased the Soviet defense burden, particularly with how they used the submarine element of their nuclear deterent and the poor quality of their bombers. Likely ending the cold war sooner without a shot. In retrospect it's hard to call it anything other than a very shrewed gamble.

Nothing says "we care" like mobilizing ground forces and going into Southern Lebanon.
How far do you think a sniper can shoot practically? The record is about 2500 meters, and it's not held by an Israeli. Either you're for the invasion of Lebanon, which would be necessary for the operation of any snipers let alone some crazy Enemy At the Gates vision of them fanning out through urban areas without notice, or you're not.

A Different View About The Middle East! sorry, but how is this different? Your infantile rant merely touched the surface of rather wide range of issues, and can be summarized by "I don't like Israel, they make trouble!!!111111". Honestly. We've had this thread a billion times alredy.

sorry, but how is this different? Your infantile rant merely touched the surface of rather wide range of issues, and can be summarized by "I don't like Israel, they make trouble!!!111111". Honestly. We've had this thread a billion times alredy.


What Kreitzmoor said...

sorry, but how is this different? Your infantile rant merely touched the surface of rather wide range of issues, and can be summarized by "I don't like Israel, they make trouble!!!111111". Honestly. We've had this thread a billion times alredy.


Almost as much as the "Whoohoo!! We's gunna get them dirty Hezbowlahs, and Isreal is teh L337!" threads.

and her rant was hardly infantile.

Re: UN resolution 242.. or whatever it is says

Israel should give up land conquered in the 1967 war IN RETURN FOR PEACE TREATIES with her neighbours

Eygpt signed a peace treaty in 1977 and got the sinai back, excluding gaza which they did'nt want and who can blame them...

It seems to me that Israel is way out of control. Yes, this is my opinion, however it is shared by many other people who are not anti-Semites. (myself included)

I know I don't post here very often anymore but I am getting a little tired of that same old song always being sung by us here in the west.

There is currently a resolution that was passed wayyyy back after Israel's land grab of the Golan Heights for them to return the land without delay to Syria. There have been quite a few UN resolutions passed AGAINST Israel. (Although the lions's share do get vetoed by the United States) None the less, there are many UN resolutions that have PASSED against Israel, to which Israel has ignored each and everyone of them to date!

So when I see and hear Israel trying to tout res. 1559 it makes me sick! Hypocrisy at it's best folks.

I supports Israel's right to exist. What I don't support is that Israel can or has done no wrong, because that would be an outright LIE!

It is my belief that if Israel truly wanted peace they would return the occupied lands back to the rightful owners. (Arabs) But do we see them doing that? No! Arab countries occupy NO Israeli land... but they're the bad guys?? Please give me a freaking break!

Israel has broken more international laws in the last 40 odd years than you can shake a stick at! They are NOT innocent here!

Perhaps peace can come to Israel and their Arab neighbours, but ONLY if Israel is willing to give back ALL of the land it has stolen and occupies and in most cases occupies it illegally.

Hezbollah may not have the high ground in this current conflict, but either does Israel by a long shot.

Hezbollah unlike what most of us view as "terrorists" are not. In fact very few countries list them as so. Russia doesn't list them and neither does the E. U. No, Hezbollah may have thought it was business as usual, that goes on between Hezbollah and Israel all the time..Israel kidnaps their members and Hezbollah kidnaps Israel's members and then they do an exchange like in 2004. Just like they have always done.

This time, Israel is off the hook! There needs to be an end to this now, not later. Cease-Fire NOW!

* please no flaming *

You obviously know your argument does not have a leg to stand on since by page four you have yet to respond once. Nice hit & run.

I need not respond to your typically narrow mided and one dimensional point since you retreated the moment you hit 'send'.

Re: UN resolution 242.. or whatever it is says

Israel should give up land conquered in the 1967 war IN RETURN FOR PEACE TREATIES with her neighbours

Eygpt signed a peace treaty in 1977 and got the sinai back, excluding gaza which they did'nt want and who can blame them...

Egypt has honored their treaty. Hezbollah and the Palestinians have only used returned land to launch more attacks. Says more about them than it does Israel.

You obviously know your argument does not have a leg to stand on since by page four you have yet to respond once. Nice hit & run.

I need not reply since you retreated the moment you hit 'send'.


Stephs a busy lady.

Also, her arguements, and the validity of them have nothing to do with how often she is able to post.

A Different View About The Middle East! sorry, but how is this different?Your infantile rant merely touched the surface of rather wide range of issues, and can be summarized by "I don't like Israel, they make trouble!!!111111". Honestly. We've had this thread a billion times alredy.

Indeed!

Here's different:
Would a country as rich as Saudi Arabia, or as proud of it's history as Greece or Turkey, allow a private militia to provoke war with a dangerous neighbour by shooting rockets into their country? No.
There isn't much, other than a decade or two of peace, that will give Lebanon a calm sense of it's own destiny. But we sure could make them rich! There's only about 6 million people there (and less than 2 million in Gaza), so why is there any scope at all for Hezbollah to be operating hospitals and handing out food?

And no, I'm not saying we (the UN, but particularly the richest countries) should do that because the Lebanese deserve to be rich. Nor because they're starving -- but from sheer self interest, to stabilize the region and encourage all the Arab countries to live high on the hog, and pump oil just as fast as they can. (Rotten stuff will be virtually worthless in twenty years anyway.) Let them spend it on an army, or on gaudy architecture, or on buying corporations in the west. The point is, when they're all rich, they won't want to blow themselves up for some hereditary grudge against Israel, or anyone else. They'll be just like us: "Oh, no, it's horrible! I just want it to stop!"

The industrialized economies are heavily leveraged on the price of oil. The true price of oil, if measured by the money it enables motorized (shipping, anyone?) and industrialized economies to earn, is even higher than what motorists pay at the pump. And pouring a half-trillion of that back into the Middle East, to buy stability, would be a damn good investment.

Indeed!

Here's different:
Would a country as rich as Saudi Arabia, or as proud of it's history as Greece or Turkey, allow a private militia to provoke war with a dangerous neighbour by shooting rockets into their country? No.
.

Do hijacked planes count?

A good deal of the No Questions Asked Israeli Supporters are also Evangelical Apocalyptics cheering on The Second Coming.


Couldn't have put it better myself. I completely support Isreals right to exist but what they are doing is beyond logic. I can't watch the news anymore about Lebanon (I read) its so upsetting. I'm all for a ceasefire and for the Israel government to be given a one way ticket to the Hague (thou I know it will never happen)

Do hijacked planes count?

Good point.
I'll shut up before I offend any Lebanese. They don't need my help just now :rolleyes:

EDIT: oh, one of the few facts in my rant was wrong. Population of Lebanon is < 4 million.

The Harmless Children of Hezbollah? (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,429982,00.html)

Some of his points are crap, others are good. Try and be honest with yourselves - for all the mistakes the Israelis have made...Hezbollah are the bad guys here. Never forget that!

Semantics! You can call the hezbollah what you want, that doesn't stop them from being an evil institution built on hate. Who deliberately target civilians and put thousands of others at risk from putting their weapons in the middle of residential areas. With the purpouse of portraying israel as evil in the media.

Semantics! You can call the hezbollah what you want, that doesn't stop them from being an evil institution built on hate. Who deliberately target civilians and put thousands of others at risk from putting their weapons in the middle of residential areas. With the purpouse of portraying israel as evil in the media.

Whatever anyone calls Hezbollah, it doesn't make them anything they are not.
You call them an "evil institution built on hate."
They deliberately target what they percieve as the enemy, i.e. Israel, which is of course (no irony) predominantly civilians. Price you pay for being a democracy.

(I had other stuff. But I'll leave it there. It just hurts too much to hit you more. My country too is a democracy, and I hate to take responsibility for what my dumbass country does.)

Hezbollah unlike what most of us view as "terrorists" are not.

So, raising money in the US through the illicit sales of untaxed cigarettes and sending that money to the Middle East to finance suicide bombers is not "terrorism".

Suicide bombing is not "terrorism".

Killing over 200 Marines in a truck bomb attack is not "terrorism".

Canada says that they are terrorists: http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp

Using civilians as human shields. Good one, there.

So, raising money in the US through the illicit sales of untaxed cigarettes and sending that money to the Middle East to finance suicide bombers is not "terrorism".

Suicide bombing is not "terrorism".

Killing over 200 Marines in a truck bomb attack is not "terrorism".

Canada says that they are terrorists: http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp

Using civilians as human shields. Good one, there.

Of course it isn't. Neither is Hezbollah leaders saying they want all the Jews in the world to go to Isreal to make it easier to kill them.

Remember:

Hezbollah had a perfectly legitimate right to cross over into Isreal and take prisoners to use in violation of international law. It is perfectly acceptable for countries to supply a non-recognized militia, that the UN has called for to be disarmed , which regularly uses these weapons directly against Isreali civilians.

But when the IDF fights back, well, that's bad. It's bad that Isreal refuses to release prisoners that have killed dozens of people and organize more murders. It's bad when Isreal refuses to give back territory that has been used as staging points for attacks and invasions multiple times.

I'm disgusted by both sides in this. They are both rattling off all excuses and justifications for what they are doing and I'm tired of listening to it.

Its all bullshit. Human shields, collateral damage, katyshua rockets, hezbolla, IDF-all words I'm fucking tired of hearing about.

If the US gets more involved, it'll be another impossible situation Americans shouldnt die for.
If we dont get involved, it'll be another impossible situation, possibly the start of WWIII.

They are ALL scumbags that have been fighting since the beggining of time and will continue till the end-and possibly bring about the end.

Iran can state in no uncertain terms that they want Israel to be annihilated, thats their goal.
If Israel ceased to exist today, they would find someone else to fight. Thats what they do.

Fuck them all.

So, raising money in the US through the illicit sales of untaxed
<snip>
Using civilians as human shields. Good one, there.

You should use teal.
1: It would suit you.
2: It indicates irony, which you don't seem to be able to do otherwise.

Really (not in teal) you confuse so many debates by stating things which sound almost reasonable, which you are in fact mocking.

You should use teal.
1: It would suit you.
2: It indicates irony, which you don't seem to be able to do otherwise.

Really (not in teal) you confuse so many debates by stating things which sound almost reasonable, which you are in fact mocking.

If anyone is inane enough to believe that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, I shouldn't have to highlight anything in teal.

I can't cure their ignorance of the world.

OK, now that I've had some sleep, I'll break this whole post down.

It seems to me that Israel is way out of control. Yes, this is my opinion, however it is shared by many other people who are not anti-Semites. (myself included) Yes, that's your opinion. Israel is allowed to do as they please since Hezbollah attacked them here. Israel shouldn't adhere to proportionality. Had Israel's actions been mere retrabution, then they would use it, but Israel's strategic goal is to cripple Hezbollah. Given that case, Israel must follow the Weinberger and Powell Doctrines should they with to suceed. THat means they must use overwhelming force. Now Israel isn't even doing that. They are only using about a half division strength of ground troops during this war. Their 800+ warplane Air Force is only flying a few dozen strikes a day. Israel is defniteyl showing restraint here. Had they been targetting civilians, there would be near a million dead.

I know I don't post here very often anymore but I am getting a little tired of that same old song always being sung by us here in the west.
What song would that be? Israel is a strategic ally of ours. THey are a democracy that has gay marraige, Arabs on the supreme Court, and woman's rights. (They've had a woman PM). Israel's enemies OTOH see woman's rights advances as letting them become suicide bombers.


There is currently a resolution that was passed wayyyy back after Israel's land grab of the Golan Heights for them to return the land without delay to Syria. There have been quite a few UN resolutions passed AGAINST Israel. (Although the lions's share do get vetoed by the United States) None the less, there are many UN resolutions that have PASSED against Israel, to which Israel has ignored each and everyone of them to date!

Let's talk about 242. Now the GOlan Heights will not be vacated until Syria becomes more moderate. Israel has always been able to trade land for peace with its neighbors. Syria won't even recognize Israel's right to exist. The existance of Israel relies on the Golan Heights.

They are the most important strategic grounds in the region. Giving over that position to the Syrians would be a suicide pact for the nation of ISrael. I know that your idea might sound good in theory, but in reality it's just not workable when Syria is hell bent on the destruction of Israel.

Oh Israel didn't take the lands in a land grab. Israel was a week away from destruction and had to act first. Nassir even said that Egypt and Syria were planning an attack. Egypt blocakded Israel and had massed troops on the border. It was Israel's Mossad that used its agents in the Egyptian government that told Israel their true intentions. Had ISrael not struck first in June 1967, there would be a couple million dead Jews.

Now Israel has been trying to pull out of the other territories involved in 242. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are 2 territories Israel is trying to get out of. They already actually got out of Gaza last Fall. Olmert ran on a platform of pulling out of the West Bank. He said 2 days ago that even with what is going on he still has a target date of 2009 or 2010. You have conveniently forgotten that even after Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Palestinians elected a terrorist organization.

Israel would've been out of there in 2000 had Arafat negotiated. Israel made it's offers to the PLO. The offer included East Jerusalem. Arafat refused to even offer a counter-proposal. He had already planned the Intifada and nothing would stop him from launching it. It isn't Israel's fault that they never
had a peace partner to negotiate with.


http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOn...chapter-8.html

If you read this page, you will see that Israel doesn't have to pullout of all of the territories. What is important here is that we see the author's intent. They even realized that Israel should retain a few portions of the West Bank and other strategically important territory that is neccessary for Israel's defense.


So when I see and hear Israel trying to tout res. 1559 it makes me sick! Hypocrisy at it's best folks.
Israel has tried to follow 242. They don't have a willing partner for peace though. Most other resolutions passed are UN General Assembly resolutions. They are not legally binding, they are just like a House Resolution. They mean nothing other than a statement of opinion. As for UNSCRs, most are either extensions of 242 or are ones condemning a past act. They aren't resolutions that Israel can act on so they aren't really ignoring UN Resolutions. Saying so is quite dishonest on your part.

Now, you should also realize that 1/3 of the General Assembly is made up of Islamic nations, you can see why so many are passed and why Saudi Arabia and Syria haven't been condemned once by the UN despite their much worse human rights records.

I supports Israel's right to exist. What I don't support is that Israel can or has done no wrong, because that would be an outright LIE!
I haven't said they can do no wrong, but they certainly are more righteous than the neighboring theocracies that behead homo-sexuals, stone adulterers, and cut the hands off theives.


It is my belief that if Israel truly wanted peace they would return the occupied lands back to the rightful owners. (Arabs) But do we see them doing that? No! Arab countries occupy NO Israeli land... but they're the bad guys?? Please give me a freaking break!
See my above point where I commented on the land returns. How about this one, if the Arabs wanted peace, wouldn't they recognize Israel or accept the 2000 Camp David Accords? Wouldn't they have not elected a terrorist organization.

Israel has broken more international laws in the last 40 odd years than you can shake a stick at! They are NOT innocent here!
And the ARabs have broken far more. But whenyou have oil, you get away with it as the Russians, French, and Chinese won't raise a finger to condemn you for fear of economic reprocussions. ISrael killing civilians here isn't even a crime in this case. Israel is trying to hit targets that are using human shields. If you use human shields, the place you occupy is a legal targat and the person using the civilians is legally responsible for their deaths. (That's according to the Fourth Geneva Convention.) Hezbollah is launching rockets from the most densely populated areas of Lebanon. When the counterbattery fire comes, civilians are harmed. It is tragic, but the fault of Hezbollah.

Perhaps peace can come to Israel and their Arab neighbours, but ONLY if Israel is willing to give back ALL of the land it has stolen and occupies and in most cases occupies it illegally.
Israel has tried to give it back. The Arabs won't do it because then the Palestinians are their problem and they lose their biggest piece of ammo to use againt the Jews. If Israel had a peace partner of if Abbas had been in charge in 2000, things would be different. Israel has given back Gaza and will give back the West Bank in 4 years.

Hezbollah may not have the high ground in this current conflict, but either does Israel by a long shot.
I don't know, HEzbollah is targetting civilians intentionally. HEzbollah is using human shields. Israel is certainly on higher ground here.

Hezbollah unlike what most of us view as "terrorists" are not. In fact very few countries list them as so. Russia doesn't list them and neither does the E. U. No, Hezbollah may have thought it was business as usual, that goes on between Hezbollah and Israel all the time..Israel kidnaps their members and Hezbollah kidnaps Israel's members and then they do an exchange like in 2004. Just like they have always done. So since the Russians (who are buddy buddy with Iran) don't recognize that Iran's proxy army is a terrorist group, they therefore aren't one.:rolleyes: Think for yourself and look at what Hezbollah does here. They are a terrorist organization. YOu don't need a government to tell you that fact. I will admit that Hezbollah had a legit cause when founded, but when Israel pulled out in 2000, they had no reason to exist and should've layed their arms down. They instead decided to work towards the destruction of Israel.

This time, Israel is off the hook! There needs to be an end to this now, not later. Cease-Fire NOW! Status Quo Ante is not acceptable. That means Hezbollah is still unchecked in Southern Lebanon as a state within a state.

* please no flaming *check;)

You should use teal.
1: It would suit you.

Yeah! My idea is spreading.:p

Stephs a busy lady.

Also, her arguements, and the validity of them have nothing to do with how often she is able to post.
I'll give her a break on the account that she has other stuff to do. I've responded to the post on page 5. Hopefully it will get a real debate going.

Yassah Arafhat didn't help either when he denied a ceasefire between Palestine and Israel decades ago.

I'm disgusted by both sides in this.
<snip>
Fuck them all.

Yep. There's a button on the remote for that.

I can't cure their ignorance of the world.

Before I even read IDF's long post, I'll just say:
You can cure other's ignorance. The cure is wisdom.

Before I even read IDF's long post, I'll just say:
You can cure other's ignorance. The cure is wisdom.
little ignorance can win all the wisdom in the world. information demand open-mind.

So, raising money in the US through the illicit sales of untaxed cigarettes and sending that money to the Middle East to finance suicide bombers is not "terrorism".
Um... No? Though it's still a criminal act, it's not an act of terror in and by itself.

Suicide bombing is not "terrorism".
It is.

Killing over 200 Marines in a truck bomb attack is not "terrorism".
It isn't.

Canada says that they are terrorists: http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp
Woot! Someone actually listens to the canadians for once :)

Using civilians as human shields. Good one, there. Not nice.

(NOTE: According to my definition of terrorism. Have a happening day!)

I'm disgusted by both sides in this. They are both rattling off all excuses and justifications for what they are doing and I'm tired of listening to it.

Its all bullshit. Human shields, collateral damage, katyshua rockets, hezbolla, IDF-all words I'm fucking tired of hearing about.

If the US gets more involved, it'll be another impossible situation Americans shouldnt die for.
If we dont get involved, it'll be another impossible situation, possibly the start of WWIII.

They are ALL scumbags that have been fighting since the beggining of time and will continue till the end-and possibly bring about the end.

Iran can state in no uncertain terms that they want Israel to be annihilated, thats their goal.
If Israel ceased to exist today, they would find someone else to fight. Thats what they do.

Fuck them all.
Fuck them all in the ass!
Agreed one hundred percent, by the way.

<snip> Their 800+ warplane Air Force is only flying a few dozen strikes a day. Israel is defniteyl showing restraint here. Had they been targetting civilians, there would be near a million dead.
<snip>
Let's talk about 242. Now the GOlan Heights will not be vacated until Syria becomes more moderate. Israel has always been able to trade land for peace with its neighbors.
<snip>
How about this one, if the Arabs wanted peace, wouldn't they recognize Israel or accept the 2000 Camp David Accords? Wouldn't they have not elected a terrorist organization.
<snip>

Nice. Real nice. What colour do I use for this?

How often have you heard of countries winning wars and then returning the land they gained? I don't see Mexicans blowing things up in Colorado, Texas, California, etc... demanding the return of the 1/3rd of Mexico the USA stole through aggressive warfare. Nor do I see Spaniards and Argentines firing rockets into downtown London over Gibraltar and the Falklands.

Thats because Mexicans do not currently have Americans building settlements in their midst and seizng their land. And no, theres no emmigration allowed.


the UN is so biased they vote in favour comaring zionism to racism. they are many reasons why they can't tell us what to do, wjile they only blame us.
.

Theres only one, and its called "US veto", thus creating two sets of rules.


first 1559, than cease-fire..

Try 242 before jumping off into 4 figures.


The record is about 2500 meters, and it's not held by an Israeli. ..

Which is odd, because if they can hit a school girl running around the place, you'd think they'd be able to take out anything.....


Using civilians as human shields. Good one, there...

If they do, they're hardly the only ones at it... (//http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp)


you read this page, you will see that Israel doesn't have to pullout of all of the territories...

Yet the main author of 242 said that yes, they did have to pullout and that any change of boundary had to be by agreement. I pointed this out to you on another thread when you were on about "authors intent". (that being said I presume you've gone to the excuse warehouse to dig out another dozen since then)


Israel has tried to follow 242....

Just so as we're clear here...How in the name of sufferin Jaysus does unilaterally building FUCKING CIVILLIAN SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCU-FUCKEN-PIED TERRITORIES RELATE TO "tried to follow 242"????????? In your own time...no pressure...


If you use human shields, the place you occupy is a legal targat and the person using the civilians is legally responsible for their deaths. (That's according to the Fourth Geneva Convention.)....

See "If they do, ...." above. And isn't it true that Israel refuses to apply the 4th Geneva convention in the occupied territories?

Yep, same old thread. Oh well.

Yep, same old thread. Oh well.

Are you surprised? :confused:

Theres only one, and its called "US veto", thus creating two sets of rules.rules that enforced differently on arab states, but come to power on israel, should be veto before they come into discussion.



Try 242 before jumping off into 4 figures.and as many explained before, you probably had biased thought of what 242 actually mean.

Are you surprised? :confused:

I'm new :confused:
I feel so old. There isn't an emoticon for that.
There are other threads. I'll be fine. :)

as I said he think we will negotiate with him like the former times, because we "weak".

Again, I don't think it's an assessment of weakness. He thought he held the cards, he didn't. Israel apparently decided to imitate the complete failure in Gaza by repeating (in a milder form, thankfully) the complete failure in 1982, and that surprised him.

there were border clashes on small range, as reaction to their acts. nothing that give them excuse for this kidnapping and the former kidnapping before 3 years.

I read somewhere that Israel has arrested Lebanese across the border post-withdrawal; do you know if that's accurate?

Anyway, no, it doesn't excuse the kidnapping.

anyway, it was more to strengh his organization, than to help the lebannese.

I didn't say anything about helping the Lebanese. I'll leave that to the Lebanese to decide. I think it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, but Israel's response has been fierce enough to play into hands, making it incredibly stupid as well. You created Hezbollah the last time you devastated Lebanon; do you think it is going to solve anything this time?

So, raising money in the US through the illicit sales of untaxed cigarettes and sending that money to the Middle East to finance suicide bombers is not "terrorism".

Call me when the US prosecutes those who sent money and other resources to the IRA while residing in America as terrorists. Otherwise, shut up.

Call me when the US prosecutes those who sent money and other resources to the IRA while residing in America as terrorists. Otherwise, shut up.
You'll have to take that up with Senator Edward Kennedy.

Fuck them all in the ass!
Agreed one hundred percent, by the way.
You first. I've already had my dick up their asses.

Yet the main author of 242 said that yes, they did have to pullout and that any change of boundary had to be by agreement. I pointed this out to you on another thread when you were on about "authors intent". (that being said I presume you've gone to the excuse warehouse to dig out another dozen since then)
Israel TRIED to make an agreement. Remember Camp David and Oslo? Even if the PLO didn't see Israel's offer as acceptable, they could've made a counter-proposal. Barak would've likely negotiated to make a lasting peace agreement had the Palestinians been interested in negotiating. They weren't though, they just wanted to have the Intifada. This isn't an excuse, this is FACT. Deal with it.



Just so as we're clear here...How in the name of sufferin Jaysus does unilaterally building FUCKING CIVILLIAN SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCU-FUCKEN-PIED TERRITORIES RELATE TO "tried to follow 242"????????? In your own time...no pressure...
Yeah, that's why Israel completely disassembled every Gaza settlement and is preparing to do the same in the West Bank.:rolleyes: Past governments built them, but Olmert sure as hell doesn't.



See "If they do, ...." above. And isn't it true that Israel refuses to apply the 4th Geneva convention in the occupied territories? How has Israel violated it? The Palestinians and Hezbollah use human shields.

Israel TRIED to make an agreement. Remember Camp David and Oslo? Even if the PLO didn't see Israel's offer as acceptable, they could've made a counter-proposal. Barak would've likely negotiated to make a lasting peace agreement had the Palestinians been interested in negotiating. They weren't though, they just wanted to have the Intifada. This isn't an excuse, this is FACT. Deal with it...

Arafat took charge of negotiations and made a complete balls of them. However it was Sharons visit to the mount that started the intifada.


Yeah, that's why Israel completely disassembled every Gaza settlement and is preparing to do the same in the West Bank.:rolleyes: Past governments built them, but Olmert sure as hell doesn't..

All of them? O I think not. And whats he going to do with East Jerusalem?


How has Israel violated it? The Palestinians and Hezbollah use human shields.

Well apart from using human Shields themselves for years, they don't actually apply the fourth Geneva convention in the occupied territories, officially and as a matter of policy. I would have thought you'd be aware of this.

Yeah, that's why Israel completely disassembled every Gaza settlement and is preparing to do the same in the West Bank.:rolleyes: Past governments built them, but Olmert sure as hell doesn't.Bullshit, IDF. If you haven't figured out by now that Israel will retain a prescence in the West Bank, you're in denial.

Or Sharm El Shiekh, if he had his way....

Komyunizumu']Unfortunately, that won't happen because Israel is mostly Jewish while the Middle East is a Muslim state.

The Middle East is a Muslim state?

Er...

Israel TRIED to make an agreement. Remember Camp David and Oslo? Even if the PLO didn't see Israel's offer as acceptable, they could've made a counter-proposal.

Taba Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit)

(snip)
Stef=pwned!

Arafat took charge of negotiations and made a complete balls of them. However it was Sharons visit to the mount that started the intifada.

You don't get it. It is SHaron's right to visit the Temple Mount. It is the holiest site in Judaism and no one can tell him or any Jew that he can't go there. If any person tried to stop me, they would have a broken nose or worse.


All of them? O I think not. And whats he going to do with East Jerusalem? They had their chance to get that in 2000. They rejected the Camp David Accords. Think of this loss as their punishment. Besides, East Jerusalem was under Arab control from 1948-1967. During this time, the Muslims restricted other religions from visiting the Old City. Israel on the other hand allows everyone to visit. We don't want to go back to those days.



Well apart from using human Shields themselves for years, they don't actually apply the fourth Geneva convention in the occupied territories, officially and as a matter of policy. I would have thought you'd be aware of this.
Israel doesn't use human shields. The Palestinians do. They put their bomb making facilities in civilian areas. Every so often, they have them cook off while they are working on them. The Palestinians of course blame Israel whenever this happens.

Taba Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_summit)
The Palestinians still had the opportunity to get a state and walked out on it. Israel is allowed to retain some of the land in the West Bank. Resoultion 242 was quite clear in the fact that Israel doesn't have to withdraw from ALL of the territories, just some of them.

Isreal (http://www.moiz.ca/coffin.htm), Sudan (http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/fs/2005/45105.htm), Congo (http://allafrica.com/stories/200608040815.html).

People need to get a sense of perspective. There are far worse problems in the world.

There is currently a resolution that was passed wayyyy back after Israel's land grab of the Golan Heights for them to return the land without delay to Syria. There have been quite a few UN resolutions passed AGAINST Israel. (Although the lions's share do get vetoed by the United States) None the less, there are many UN resolutions that have PASSED against Israel, to which Israel has ignored each and everyone of them to date!

Land grab? They won the war where they gained the Golan Heights. I have looked at several of these resolutions and many of them deal with just condemning Israel and telling them not to deport people. There are very few that require them to actually do something.

Besides, the are acting just like the rest of the Middle East when it comes to ignoring UN resolutions.

So when I see and hear Israel trying to tout res. 1559 it makes me sick! Hypocrisy at it's best folks.

So 1559 should not be enforced?

I supports Israel's right to exist. What I don't support is that Israel can or has done no wrong, because that would be an outright LIE!

Yep.

It is my belief that if Israel truly wanted peace they would return the occupied lands back to the rightful owners. (Arabs) But do we see them doing that? No! Arab countries occupy NO Israeli land... but they're the bad guys?? Please give me a freaking break!

Question for you. What line would you suggest they go back to? The line that was offered to Yassar Arafat where 95% of the land was offered to be given back including East Jerusalem?

Israel has broken more international laws in the last 40 odd years than you can shake a stick at! They are NOT innocent here!

Actually they are as they did not start this conflict. They also do not hide among civilians and launch rockets from purely civilian buildings. By doing so, they make those buildings legitament military targets. That also includes buildings where they store those rockets as well.

Perhaps peace can come to Israel and their Arab neighbours, but ONLY if Israel is willing to give back ALL of the land it has stolen and occupies and in most cases occupies it illegally.

Then there will be no Israel if that is the case if you want to go by what the arabs are talking about.

Hezbollah may not have the high ground in this current conflict, but either does Israel by a long shot.

Who started the conflict? Who fires from civilian buildings? Who uses hospitals for command centers? Who hides behind civilians in complete violation of the law?

Hezbollah unlike what most of us view as "terrorists" are not.

Hezbollah is not a terror organization despite the fact that they go out of their way on purpose to kill as many civilians as possible? They are not even trying to go after government or military targets.

In fact very few countries list them as so. Russia doesn't list them and neither does the E. U. No, Hezbollah may have thought it was business as usual, that goes on between Hezbollah and Israel all the time..Israel kidnaps their members and Hezbollah kidnaps Israel's members and then they do an exchange like in 2004. Just like they have always done.

Israel kidnapps people? That is a new one on me.

This time, Israel is off the hook! There needs to be an end to this now, not later. Cease-Fire NOW!

* please no flaming *

No Cease-Fire until Hezbollah and Lebanon comply with 1559.

Komyunizumu']Unfortunately, that won't happen because Israel is mostly Jewish while the Middle East is a Muslim state.

Not to mention if that were to happen, there will be no Israeli state.

The Palestinians still had the opportunity to get a state and walked out on it.

So? It was a bad offer, they rejected it. Israel probably could have gotten a settlement by conceding enough, too.

So? It was a bad offer, they rejected it. Israel probably could have gotten a settlement by conceding enough, too.

Without a counter-proposal?

Again, I don't think it's an assessment of weakness. He thought he held the cards, he didn't. Israel apparently decided to imitate the complete failure in Gaza by repeating (in a milder form, thankfully) the complete failure in 1982, and that surprised him.
the failure in gaza was for lack of response.
1982 lebanon wasn't a failure but we stuck there like USA in vietnam.

I read somewhere that Israel has arrested Lebanese across the border post-withdrawal; do you know if that's accurate?as I said, border clashes in response to their acts.





I didn't say anything about helping the Lebanese. I'll leave that to the Lebanese to decide. I think it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, but Israel's response has been fierce enough to play into hands, making it incredibly stupid as well. You created Hezbollah the last time you devastated Lebanon; do you think it is going to solve anything this time?
we also strenghen the hizbulla when we negotiate with them on the former kidnapping. negotiation won't help.

Isreal (http://www.moiz.ca/coffin.htm), Sudan (http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/fs/2005/45105.htm), Congo (http://allafrica.com/stories/200608040815.html).

People need to get a sense of perspective. There are far worse problems in the world.


*repeats that*

Of course, allowing the Arabs to win in the Levant REALLY helps Darfur, doesn't it?

the failure in gaza was for lack of response.

Lack of response? Olmert's incursion was a "lack of response"?

1982 lebanon wasn't a failure but we stuck there like USA in vietnam.

Yes, you managed very successfully to destroy the PLO and end the terrorist threat from Lebanon.

Oh, wait.

You did manage to kill some 20,000 people - needlessly and uselessly. There are good reasons that the Lebanese aren't precisely great fans of Israel.

as I said, border clashes in response to their acts.

Yes, and Hezbollah would argue the same thing.

we also strenghen the hizbulla when we negotiate with them on the former kidnapping. negotiation won't help.

Perhaps, but if Israel wants peace in the region, its leadership is going to have to learn that they can't devastate South Lebanon every few years. It isn't going to solve anything, ever.

It is my belief that if Israel truly wanted peace they would return the occupied lands back to the rightful owners. (Arabs) But do we see them doing that? No!
They tried that with Gaza. Militants kept firing on them.

In other words, The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine at work. "LOOK OUT IT'S HEADED RIGHT FOR US!!'
By their own admission they were planning an attack on Israel.

What's next, Israel started the Yom Kippur war?

Basically the Guilty Machismo Complex as displayed by Dear Leader in the past.

This can only bode woe for Israel and the Middle East.
I agree, Olmert's 'image' is definitely at play here and that is unfortunate.

They tried that with Gaza. Militants kept firing on them.

Do not forget Lebanon. They left there too and they still were attacked. The only place where they gave land back without being fired upon in return is with Egypt.

Lack of response? Olmert's incursion was a "lack of response"?this happened after 10 moths from the pullout. we should've respond to the first missles they launch to state a point.



Yes, you managed very successfully to destroy the PLO and end the terrorist threat from Lebanon.

Oh, wait.

You did manage to kill some 20,000 people - needlessly and uselessly. There are good reasons that the Lebanese aren't precisely great fans of Israel.it was militarry success.
you are talking about the years after that when we were stucked in that swamp and many killed in both of the sides, which is irrelevance to lebanon war in 1982.


Yes, and Hezbollah would argue the same thing.only they are terror organization.



Perhaps, but if Israel wants peace in the region, its leadership is going to have to learn that they can't devastate South Lebanon every few years. It isn't going to solve anything, ever.israel want peace and that why we pullout from lebanon and gaza.
however, we aren't going to ignore the terror attacks of those who want to destroy us.

You don't get it. It is SHaron's right to visit the Temple Mount. It is the holiest site in Judaism and no one can tell him or any Jew that he can't go there. If any person tried to stop me, they would have a broken nose or worse. .

A private visit would have been appropriate. Thats not what Bulldozer had in mind.

They had their chance to get that in 2000. They rejected the Camp David Accords. Think of this loss as their punishment. Besides, East Jerusalem was under Arab control from 1948-1967. During this time, the Muslims restricted other religions from visiting the Old City. Israel on the other hand allows everyone to visit. We don't want to go back to those days.
.

I refer you to the Taba summit post.


Israel doesn't use human shields. The Palestinians do. They put their bomb making facilities in civilian areas. Every so often, they have them cook off while they are working on them. The Palestinians of course blame Israel whenever this happens.

I'm sorry but that looks like you're saying Israel doesnt use human shields. Are you unaware of the court case about this? And you havent answered my question vis a vis the fourth Geneva convention..


The Palestinians still had the opportunity to get a state and walked out on it. Israel is allowed to retain some of the land in the West Bank. Resoultion 242 was quite clear in the fact that Israel doesn't have to withdraw from ALL of the territories, just some of them..

Please show me the relevant section of the resolution where it says this. Its a short one, so this shouldnt be a problem. Though you seemed to have difficulty doing it the last time I asked...

Besides, the are acting just like the rest of the Middle East when it comes to ignoring UN resolutions...

Syria was forced to withdraw under threat of sanctions from lebanon.

Israel kidnapps people? That is a new one on me....

Given the rest of your post thats hardly suprising, however allow me to educate you, if such a thing is possible. How did, for instance, Mordechai Vannunu end up in an Israeli jail?


They tried that with Gaza. Militants kept firing on them.....

Because they were still in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

Syria was forced to withdraw under threat of sanctions from lebanon.

Yes they did however, they were supposed to have withdrawn awhile ago under a UN Resolution I believe. I am going to have to look that up.

Given the rest of your post thats hardly suprising, however allow me to educate you, if such a thing is possible.

Do not talk down to me Nodinia. It is very rude and I did not deserve it.

How did, for instance, Mordechai Vannunu end up in an Israeli jail?

And he is?

Because they were still in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

And if they had taken the deal that was offered, they would already have East Jerusalem and the West Bank (and they still will probably pull out of there anyway) and Gaza.

Yes they did however, they were supposed to have withdrawn awhile ago under a UN Resolution I believe. I am going to have to look that up.
.

Indeed they did, due to threat of sanctions. Sanctions that the US blocks when it comes to Israels far long, less welcome and more destructive stay in the OT.


Do not talk down to me Nodinia. It is very rude and I did not deserve it.


You did.


And he is?
.

See what I mean? Go look him up. (I find this saves arguments about whose sources are full of more crap than whose etc).


And if they had taken the deal that was offered, they would already have East Jerusalem and the West Bank (and they still will probably pull out of there anyway) and Gaza.

There was no workable proposal concerning Arab East Jerusalem.

You did.

No one deserves to be talked down too Nodinia.

See what I mean? Go look him up. (I find this saves arguments about whose sources are full of more crap than whose etc).

Tell me who he is or I am going to write it off.

There was no workable proposal concerning Arab East Jerusalem.

Just continue to tell yourself that Nodinia. It is obvious you do not know as much as you think you do.

How is the fact that every time israel gives back land...with the notable exception of Egypt and Siani...they are attacked from the land they give up..promote any type of PEACE ?

Stop with the bullshit and just address that one simple fucking outstanding fact .

Please explain how it advances the PEACE proccess ?

If I lived in Israel I'd just back whomever said " FUCK THEM THEY GET NOTHING BUT BULLETS " Because they have PROVEN they do not WANT peace .

And thats a fact jack..talking and diplomacy get you so far ...then you just need to KICK ASS ..and let them BEG you for peace .

How is the fact that every time israel gives back land...with the notable exception of Egypt and Siani...they are attacked from the land they give up..promote any type of PEACE ?

Stop with the bullshit and just address that one simple fucking outstanding fact .

Please explain how it advances the PEACE proccess ?

It does not. In fact, it detracts from the peace process.

Tell me who he is or I am going to write it off.


"Mordechai Vanunu ) (מרדכי ואנונו) (born October 13, 1954), also known by his baptismal name John Crossman, is an Israeli former nuclear technician who revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986. He was subsequently abducted in Rome by an Israeli Mossad agent and smuggled to Israel, where he was tried and convicted of treason."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

"Mordechai Vanunu ) (מרדכי ואנונו) (born October 13, 1954), also known by his baptismal name John Crossman, is an Israeli former nuclear technician who revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986. He was subsequently abducted in Rome by an Israeli Mossad agent and smuggled to Israel, where he was tried and convicted of treason."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

So according to Israel, he violated the laws of Israel. Interesting. Thanks for the link. I shall look into this in more detail.

A private visit would have been appropriate. Thats not what Bulldozer had in mind. What was wrong with his visit? It is his right to visit the sight as he pleases. I could go there with a group of people and no one could stop me. You must've loved the Arab policy barring Jews from the site.


I refer you to the Taba summit post.
Arafat was offered a much better deal at Camp David. He rejected that deal.
It's the Palestinians own damn fault that Israel was much less willing to deal at Taba. The Intifada had ignited security concerns. THat meant that some portions of the West Bank would have to be retained to make sure the Palestinians couldn't get too out of control. Arafat and the Palestinians are alone to blame for not having a state.

I'm sorry but that looks like you're saying Israel doesnt use human shields. Are you unaware of the court case about this? And you havent answered my question vis a vis the fourth Geneva convention..

Show me one case where Israel uses its civilians as human shields. I don't know where Israel has violated the fourth Geneva convention there. They don't hide their helicopters and missiles within apartment blocks as the Lebanese do.



Please show me the relevant section of the resolution where it says this. Its a short one, so this shouldnt be a problem. Though you seemed to have difficulty doing it the last time I asked...

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOn...chapter-8.html

Read up. The author himself says so. THey deliberately left the word ALL out of the resolution.

What was wrong with his visit? It is his right to visit the sight as he pleases. I could go there with a group of people and no one could stop me. You must've loved the Arab policy barring Jews from the site..

Its nothing to do with him being Jewish but quite a bit to do with him being known as "father of the settler movement" and most importantly the one responsible for the Shabitila camp massacre etc in Lebanon.


Arafat was offered a much better deal at Camp David. He rejected that deal.
It's the Palestinians own damn fault that Israel was much less willing to deal at Taba. The Intifada had ignited security concerns. THat meant that some portions of the West Bank would have to be retained to make sure the Palestinians couldn't get too out of control. Arafat and the Palestinians are alone to blame for not having a state. ..

Always them, never Israel....


Show me one case where Israel uses its civilians as human shields...

I never said they did. I said they use human shields. Palestinians/Arabs.


I don't know where Israel has violated the fourth Geneva convention there.
...

See above. Or are you going to deny it? And it refuses to enforce the laws of the 4th Geneva convention within the OT.


They don't hide their helicopters and missiles within apartment blocks as the Lebanese do....

You mean Hezbollah. And they don't have helicopters. And so far all IDF footage I've seen has shown missiles firing from fields and orchards.



http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOn...chapter-8.html

Read up. The author himself says so. THey deliberately left the word ALL out of the resolution.

Your link doesnt work, however I presume you refer to

"In a 1974 statement he said:

“It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. … That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.” ("he" being lord Caradon).

I suggest that you've been misled, in that that is not actually reflective of his position. This, more full statement, is more enlightening -

"Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution, takes a subtly different slant. His focus seems to be that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanance to the pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:

Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle" (UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 )

Negotiation. Not unilateral building of civilian settlements. At all.

Its nothing to do with him being Jewish but quite a bit to do with him being known as "father of the settler movement" and most importantly the one responsible for the Shabitila camp massacre etc in Lebanon.
How can you honestly blame him for a massacre committed by Lebanese Christians. If a brigade of IDF troops did it, you might have a point. Sharon can't be blamed for the actions of allies. It would be like holding Britain accountable for Mai Lai.



Always them, never Israel....
That is actually the case. They walked away from a deal better than the one they wil get when all is said and done. They can kiss Jerusalem goodbye. There is no way in hell Israel will give it to them now. Think of it as punishment for their actions.


I never said they did. I said they use human shields. Palestinians/Arabs.
Bullshit! I do know they've used people who were throwing stones at the troops to stop their friends from throwing more rocks. That is hardly comparable to using 100s of civilians as shields while you fire rockets hoping to kill civilians in Haifa.



See above. Or are you going to deny it? And it refuses to enforce the laws of the 4th Geneva convention within the OT. They don't use hundreds of women and children to shield them while they launch attacks. The only cases I know are ones where they use rock throwers to stop his friends from throwing rocks.



You mean Hezbollah. And they don't have helicopters. And so far all IDF footage I've seen has shown missiles firing from fields and orchards.
I suppose this video is bullshit?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0fLzkzFCDqU




Your link doesnt work, however I presume you refer to

"In a 1974 statement he said:

“It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. … That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.” ("he" being lord Caradon).

I suggest that you've been misled, in that that is not actually reflective of his position. This, more full statement, is more enlightening -

"Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution, takes a subtly different slant. His focus seems to be that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanance to the pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:

Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle" (UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 )

Negotiation. Not unilateral building of civilian settlements. At all.
Your own source here says the 1967 line is unsatisfactory for Israel. He himself says he doesn't want to go back to the pre-Six Day War line. He knows it would make Israel very vulnerable to an attack. Israel would only have 7 miles between the West Bank and the Sea. An enemy army could cut Tel Aviv and Jerusalme off from eachother in this case.

I said that ISrael doesn't have to give it al back. Your quote here verifies my own statement here.

As for Negotiation. Israel tried it. The Palestinians want all or nothing. Israel can't accept the 67 borders and expect to survive. The Palestinians had their chance and blew it.

As for settlements, ISrael has stopped building them and is planning to withdraw so that point is useless today for your argument.

this happened after 10 moths from the pullout. we should've respond to the first missles they launch to state a point.

Didn't you respond? Not with incursions, but with air strikes?

it was militarry success.

Does it matter whether or not it was a military success? The fact of the matter is that you failed to achieve any of your objectives, at least in the long-term.

you are talking about the years after that when we were stucked in that swamp and many killed in both of the sides, which is irrelevance to lebanon war in 1982.

Actually, no. If I recall correctly, the twenty thousand dead statistic is from 1982. Blasting apart Beirut does that to casualty figures.

only they are terror organization.

So? The IDF has committed atrocities, too. Refusing to negotiate with your enemies when there is no military solution to a problem is not a wise course of action.

israel want peace and that why we pullout from lebanon and gaza.
however, we aren't going to ignore the terror attacks of those who want to destroy us.

No one has a chance of destroying you. They know it, you know it. Your survival is not at stake. The current pattern of brutal reprisals will do nothing but bring brutal reprisals against you.

You smashed Lebanon in 1982, and got Hezbollah. You smashed Gaza back in July, and got nothing. Why do you think smashing Lebanon now will solve anything?

Actually, no. If I recall correctly, the twenty thousand dead statistic is from 1982. Blasting apart Beirut does that to casualty figures.

And the Civil War going on at the time did not contribute to it?

How can you honestly blame him for a massacre committed by Lebanese Christians. If a brigade of IDF troops did it, you might have a point. Sharon can't be blamed for the actions of allies..

Because the IDF let them in the camps, as they were guarding the gates. And its far more than little old me that blames him for it.


That is actually the case. They walked away from a deal better than the one they wil get when all is said and done. They can kiss Jerusalem goodbye. There is no way in hell Israel will give it to them now. Think of it as punishment for their actions...

O so we're punishing people now....great basis for an agreement that. Given the level of casualties, and the initial expulsion, I'd say it was the Arabs that were owed big time, in that case.



Bullshit! I do know they've used people who were throwing stones at the troops to stop their friends from throwing more rocks. That is hardly comparable to using 100s of civilians as shields while you fire rockets hoping to kill civilians in Haifa....

"from throwing rocks"? O that, bullets and anything else that flies their way. Funny the way no other force seems to do it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5212870.stm

And it was official policy until 2005. Are you telling me that you didnt know it was official policy for the IDF to use human shields? For somebody who uses their initials, you don't seem to know too much.....or did you know and just keep it quiet because you realise how wrong they are?

And you still havent addressed the refusal of Israel to apply the 4th Geneva convention in the OT.


I suppose this video is bullshit?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0fLzkzFCDqU
....

It doesnt show rockets firing out of an apartment block, does it?



Your own source here says the 1967 line is unsatisfactory for Israel.
....

He says its unsatisfactory. You seem to be seeing a mirage of some sort. Not the plane neither.


He himself says he doesn't want to go back to the pre-Six Day War line. He knows it would make Israel very vulnerable to an attack. Israel would only have 7 miles between the West Bank and the Sea. An enemy army could cut Tel Aviv and Jerusalme off from eachother in this case. ....

Please don't type out your learnt by rote nonsense excuses and tell me its in a paragraph that clearly doesnt contain that. Its on the screen in front of you, for fucks sake. Worse still, its on the screen in front of me, so I know the depths of insanity you are plumbing.


I said that ISrael doesn't have to give it al back. Your quote here verifies my own statement here.....

I've put in bold and underlined bits for you, because you seem to be reading strange things in normal font.

Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle

Where does building civillian settlements fit in there?


. Israel can't accept the 67 borders and expect to survive. The Palestinians had their chance and blew it......

And why should it be up to Israel to say "they had their chance and blew it"? Hmmmm? And you'll find nations with nuclear weapons are well able to take care of themselves.


As for settlements, ISrael has stopped building them and is planning to withdraw so that point is useless today for your argument.

Have all the expansions approved by Sharon been stopped? And is there a plan to withdraw from both Arab East Jerusalem and all the settlements in the West Bank?

Because the IDF let them in the camps, as they were guarding the gates. And its far more than little old me that blames him for it.

Letting them in to the camps =/= massacring the civilians. Your true issue is with the Lebanese Christians, not Sharon.

O so we're punishing people now....great basis for an agreement that. Given the level of casualties, and the initial expulsion, I'd say it was the Arabs that were owed big time, in that case.
Owed for what? They started all 7 of the fucking wars. Israel didn't expel them. Ben Gurion urged them to stay in their homes. They decided to listen to the Arab leaders who promised they would return home to a Jew free land in 2 months. The Arabs who didn't leave are the "Israeli Arabs" you hear about. They are exactly the same as the Palestinians except for the fact they were smart enough to stay and live side by side with the Jews.




"from throwing rocks"? O that, bullets and anything else that flies their way. Funny the way no other force seems to do it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5212870.stm

And it was official policy until 2005. Are you telling me that you didnt know it was official policy for the IDF to use human shields? For somebody who uses their initials, you don't seem to know too much.....or did you know and just keep it quiet because you realise how wrong they are?

And you still havent addressed the refusal of Israel to apply the 4th Geneva convention in the OT.

This is the first case I've heard of it. If this is actually the case, I condemn this specific practice. There is no excusing this if it is the truth. I will say though that you yourself say that Israel has abolished the practice. Any past uses are horrific though, but they don't excuse Hezbollah who uses their own civilians.

As for my user name, when I joined the site I spent more time in II than any other place. I RPed as Israel and all of the good Israeli related names were taken. Most of my RPs were military related so IDF was a fititng name. Contrary to what you may believe, I don't know everything that goes on in Israel. I spend enough time following the corruption of my city's government.


It doesnt show rockets firing out of an apartment block, does it?
The UN itself has said that they are using civilians as human shields. Whether or not this video shows it is beside the point when UN observers say it is happening widespread across the nation.




He says its unsatisfactory. You seem to be seeing a mirage of some sort. Not the plane neither. Your veiled insult shows you're desperate on this point. He said the pre-war borders were unsatisfactory. Please take the time to go ahead and read your own post. He wants new borders drawn up.


Please don't type out your learnt by rote nonsense excuses and tell me its in a paragraph that clearly doesnt contain that. Its on the screen in front of you, for fucks sake. Worse still, its on the screen in front of me, so I know the depths of insanity you are plumbing.

What's insane about what I put there? Cutting off that 7 mile gap has been a crucial strategic advantage that Arab armies have tried in past wars. You should stop trying to hide your lack of valid arguments with insults. It really makes you look like a moron. He clearly said that returning to pre-67 borders would put Israel at risk.


I've put in bold and underlined bits for you, because you seem to be reading strange things in normal font.

Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle

Where does building civillian settlements fit in there?
He is still saying the lines must be redrawn. It seems like you are the one who is ignoring what is in the text. He is saying that the fact Israel conquered the lands is not the justification that can be used for annexation, but the security concerns are. If you read the whole thing, that's the only conclusion that can be taken from it.

As for a boundary commission, what the hell do you think the 2000 Camp David Accords were? Or did you conveniently forget that since the actions the Palestinians took are detrimental to their own cause? The Palestinians know they won't get 100% of what they want. The fact that they walked away from 97% of their demands shows they aren't deserving of whatever Israel ends up giving them.

As for settlements, that was in past governments. Sharon stopped authorizing them towards the end of his time. Olmert has now said he will hav ethem all vacated.

And why should it be up to Israel to say "they had their chance and blew it"? Hmmmm? And you'll find nations with nuclear weapons are well able to take care of themselves. They were offered 97% of their demands. Israel was right to offer far less at Taba. THe Palestinians must feel the reprucussions of their actions. They had to learn that resorting to war when peace was in front of them has consequences. They blew their chance.



Have all the expansions approved by Sharon been stopped? And is there a plan to withdraw from both Arab East Jerusalem and all the settlements in the West Bank? How about the fact that all West Bank settlements will be vacated by 2010? Is that good enough for you? Or does Israel have to cease to exist for you to be satisfied? East Jerusalem will never be given up now THere is no way in hell Israel gives that up. Especially seeing how the Muslim leaders won't let "infidels" enter it. (proven by their leadership from 1948-1967)

Letting them in to the camps =/= massacring the civilians. Your true issue is with the Lebanese Christians, not Sharon.

That justification can also say "The true issue is with the lynch mob, not the sheriffs who stepped aside and let them in to see those nice black people."

That justification can also say "The true issue is with the lynch mob, not the sheriffs who stepped aside and let them in to see those nice black people."
There was a civil war going on. It has not been proven that Israeli troops knew a massacre would occur. Even if a few troops knew it would happen, there is absolutely no way you can blame SHaron. It would be like blaming Rumsfeld for the actions of a few idiots at Abu Ghraib.

Letting them in to the camps =/= massacring the civilians. Your true issue is with the Lebanese Christians, not Sharon.)

"Dear, theres some young Arab men in balaclavas with AKs at the settlement door, what do you think they want?" The IDF were indirectly responsible, in that they let them in, as opposed to being directly responsible by pulling the trigger.


Owed for what? They started all 7 of the fucking wars. Israel didn't expel them. Ben Gurion urged them to stay in their homes. They decided to listen to the Arab leaders who promised they would return home to a Jew free land in 2 months. The Arabs who didn't leave are the "Israeli Arabs" you hear about. They are exactly the same as the Palestinians except for the fact they were smart enough to stay and live side by side with the Jews.

But thats been discredited, my Lad. Even Rabin revealed he'd given the order to expel 50,000 Arabs in his autobiography. As for Ben Gurion -

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (May, 1944)

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them." (from Eretz Yisrael)




This is the first case I've heard of it. If this is actually the case, I condemn this specific practice. There is no excusing this if it is the truth. I will say though that you yourself say that Israel has abolished the practice. .

So Israel, within full view and without much effort of denial, legally uses "human shields" for 30 something years, and this is the first you've heard of it....brilliant, that is.....


Contrary to what you may believe, I don't know everything that goes on in Israel. .

O thats not contrary to what I believe at all. The problem is that you don't seem to realise just how true that is, particularily when dealing with the greviances of the Arabs.


Your veiled insult shows you're desperate on this point. He said the pre-war borders were unsatisfactory. Please take the time to go ahead and read your own post. He wants new borders drawn up..

"Veiled"? I thought it was fairly straight forward. He says none of the things you try to attribute to him. What he does say is that there needs to be a negotiated settlement.


What's insane about what I put there? Cutting off that 7 mile gap has been a crucial strategic advantage that Arab armies have tried in past wars. You should stop trying to hide your lack of valid arguments with insults. It really makes you look like a moron. He clearly said that returning to pre-67 borders would put Israel at risk. ..

I am beginning to think that you are in need of medical care. Please repaste that section and put in bold and big juicy font where he says returning to pre-67 borders puts Israel at risk.


He is still saying the lines must be redrawn.
..

Yes, sane-IDF he is.


He is saying that the fact Israel conquered the lands is not the justification that can be used for annexation, but the security concerns are. ..

He does not, Insane-IDF. Bring your sane side back. He does not give any justification for annexation whatsover.


As for a boundary commission, what the hell do you think the 2000 Camp David Accords were?

They were not a boundary commission with both sides presenting their case. Thats the kind of thing the US won't allow.


It has not been proven that Israeli troops knew a massacre would occur.

"Dear, theres some young Arab men in balaclavas with AKs at the settlement door, what do you think they want?"

The Kahan commission found that the IDF was indirectly responsible, and that Ariel Sharon was personally responsible. They had promised the Americans that as part of the deal of PLO withdrawal, they would provide security for the civillians in the camps. Its actually a rather famous incident, and yet again, for somebody who has such strong opinions, I find myself amazed you seem to have no clue about it.

"Dear, theres some young Arab men in balaclavas with AKs at the settlement door, what do you think they want?" The IDF were indirectly responsible, in that they let them in, as opposed to being directly responsible by pulling the trigger. You can't prove that the IDF platoon there knew, you can't paint that the whole IDF is evil becaue of the actions of a few. It seems like you're finally dropping the BS that Sharon was responsible.



But thats been discredited, my Lad. Even Rabin revealed he'd given the order to expel 50,000 Arabs in his autobiography. As for Ben Gurion -

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (May, 1944)

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them." (from Eretz Yisrael)

If Israel expelled the Arabs, then why the hell are there over 1 million living in Israel?

I will admit some of the refugees were forced to leave if a village had taken arms against the Jews. But, those people are in the minority. The majority willingly left their homes on the orders of Arab leaders.

As for your Ben Gurion quote, he is saying that if they moved, their conditions would improve. In all honesty, he is 100% right. They are currently pawns of religious leaders right now. They are pawns of the Arab world in their fight against Israel. Your quote doesn't say that he is going to kick them out, he is saying that (since this was in 44) if partition is granted, the Arabs would be better off leaving their land. That =/= kicking them out.

Your final quote does nothing to further your argument. Read the beginning of it. The source you yourself quoted is saying that resettlement would cause more harm than good. It in fact seems to reject the idea as not practacle.

Here is a quote from former Syrian PM Khalid al-Azm. He wrote this in his autobiography:

"Since 1948 it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees while it is we who made them leave. We brougth disaster upon Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. We have rendered them dispossessed. We have accustomed them to begging. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon men, women and children -- all this in the service of political purposes."




So Israel, within full view and without much effort of denial, legally uses "human shields" for 30 something years, and this is the first you've heard of it....brilliant, that is.....
I live in America, not ISrael. Now, this doesn't excuse Hezbollah who uses thousands of their own people as shields, does it?



O thats not contrary to what I believe at all. The problem is that you don't seem to realise just how true that is, particularily when dealing with the greviances of the Arabs.

If it pisses off the Arabs so much, why do they seem to be loving Hezbollah who is directly resonsible for all of the civilian deaths in this conflict?

"Veiled"? I thought it was fairly straight forward. He says none of the things you try to attribute to him. What he does say is that there needs to be a negotiated settlement.
Can you make a post without an insult? It's obvious you are very angry here. :D When he says "negotiated settlement" he is saying the borders MUST be changed. Earlier in his statement he said the pre-war borders were unacceptable. That is exactly what I'm saying. Israel has tried negotiated settlements. It's damn near impossible when the other negotiating party is unwilling in having peace.



I am beginning to think that you are in need of medical care. Please repaste that section and put in bold and big juicy font where he says returning to pre-67 borders puts Israel at risk.
(Getting angry here aren't you?) :D I refer you to the beginning of his statement when he said the pre-war borders were unacceptable. He doesn't say, but if you use some reasoning, know the geography, and look at the situation Israel had with its neighbors of the time, it is obvious he is referring to security concerns. This was proven quite true in the 73 war. The only reason this didn't become a problem was that Jordan sat out that war.




He does not, Insane-IDF. Bring your sane side back. He does not give any justification for annexation whatsover.
Please go back and read it again. He only said that taking over in war is not justification alone. He does not say that there isn't any justification whatsoever, you are putting words in his mouth.



They were not a boundary commission with both sides presenting their case. Thats the kind of thing the US won't allow.
When Barak and Arafat sat down in 2000, they sought to settle this issue. It wasn't exactly a boundary commission, it was better than that. It was the 2 leaders sitting down to hammer out a final settlement. One problem, Arafat didn't want a settlement, he wanted a fight.




The Kahan commission found that the IDF was indirectly responsible, and that Ariel Sharon was personally responsible. They had promised the Americans that as part of the deal of PLO withdrawal, they would provide security for the civillians in the camps. Its actually a rather famous incident, and yet again, for somebody who has such strong opinions, I find myself amazed you seem to have no clue about it.
The only way he bears any responsibility is that he is high up on the chain of command. Having "The buck stops here" mentallity =/= actual moral responsibilty or control over the situation. Prove that Sharon gave the order for the massacre? Oh wait? You can't!

You can't prove that the IDF platoon there knew, you can't paint that the whole IDF is evil becaue of the actions of a few. It seems like you're finally dropping the BS that Sharon was responsible.

He was the one in charge of making sure the civilians were protected from, quite specifically, the militias. If I let a group of heavily armed Arabs into a Synagogue and then said that the consequences werent my fault and could not be blamed n me, I doubt anyone would entertain it.


If Israel expelled the Arabs, then why the hell are there over 1 million living in Israel?.

Because the majority were expelled, not all.


I will admit some of the refugees were forced to leave if a village had taken arms against the Jews. But, those people are in the minority. The majority willingly left their homes on the orders of Arab leaders..

But theres no evidence to sustain that whatsover. In fact, its almost entirely untrue. And given your vast ignorance of things related to Israel, again your emphatic tone is somewhat suprising. Were I you, I'd learn a bit more about the history of the team before launching into "cheerleader" mode.


As for your Ben Gurion quote, he is saying that if they moved, their conditions would improve. In all honesty, he is 100% right. They are currently pawns of religious leaders right now. They are pawns of the Arab world in their fight against Israel. Your quote doesn't say that he is going to kick them out, he is saying that (since this was in 44) if partition is granted, the Arabs would be better off leaving their land. That =/= kicking them out.
..

"There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%" 30/12/1947, to the committee of the Histadrut.

"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." "Feb,1948

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war." (June 16, 1948, to Cabinet, quote taken from "The First Israelis".)


Here is a quote from former Syrian PM Khalid al-Azm. He wrote this in his autobiography:

"Since 1948 it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees while it is we who made them leave. We brougth disaster upon Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. We have rendered them dispossessed. We have accustomed them to begging. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon men, women and children -- all this in the service of political purposes."
..

They attacked and this led to the circumstances which allowed the expulsion of the Palestinians by the Israelis. They then exploited them. This justifies what, precisely? Or is it supposed to be news that the Syrian govt were a pack of bastards?


I live in America, not ISrael. Now, this doesn't excuse Hezbollah who uses thousands of their own people as shields, does it? ..

Where you live is irrelevant, though your age and level of knowledge is rapidly becoming so. What I'm saying and what you keep shifting away from is that you don't seem to know precisely what you are trying to defend. You've still not answered on why the IDF refuses to apply the Geneva convention within the occupied territories, for instance.


If it pisses off the Arabs so much, why do they seem to be loving Hezbollah who is directly resonsible for all of the civilian deaths in this conflict?
..

I was fairly clearly referring to how Israeli practices, apart from the usual of land confiscation and settlement building, create resentment amongst the Palestinians. Yet again you try to shift away from uncomfortable truths.


When he says "negotiated settlement" he is saying the borders MUST be changed. Earlier in his statement he said the pre-war borders were unacceptable. That is exactly what I'm saying. Israel has tried negotiated settlements. It's damn near impossible when the other negotiating party is unwilling in having peace...

But nowhere does he mention Israel having pre-eminence over any other party. And the other "negotiating party" was suppossed to go to an independent commission, and Israel likewise.



I refer you to the beginning of his statement when he said the pre-war borders were unacceptable. He doesn't say, but if you use some reasoning, know the geography, and look at the situation Israel had with its neighbors of the time, it is obvious he is referring to security concerns. This was proven quite true in the 73 war. The only reason this didn't become a problem was that Jordan sat out that war....

But as this was written in 1981, he would have said that. It means precisely what it says - an unsatifactory situation to be resolved by a commission". Theres no mention of Israel being offered consideration more than the other. And theres absolutely no way you can construe any basis for unilaterally building civillian settlements from it.


When Barak and Arafat sat down in 2000, they sought to settle this issue. It wasn't exactly a boundary commission, it was better than that. It was the 2 leaders sitting down to hammer out a final settlement.....

And who was going to force Israel to comply? Who was the "neutral party"? America? O thats a good one.


The only way he bears any responsibility is that he is high up on the chain of command. Having "The buck stops here" mentallity =/= actual moral responsibilty or control over the situation. Prove that Sharon gave the order for the massacre? Oh wait? You can't!

Nobody said he did. Although how you know one way or the other is really good question.

I'd like to call you an idiot.

Every piece of Israel is Israel. Golan is so Syria doesnt mess. Palestinians are freeloaders and we ar not occupying they're land. No one lived there and we made it from a swamp into a nice modern country.

I'd like to call you an idiot.

Every piece of Israel is Israel. Golan is so Syria doesnt mess. Palestinians are freeloaders and we ar not occupying they're land. No one lived there and we made it from a swamp into a nice modern country.

But there is a UN resolution (242) that says you have to give it back to Syria. I'm confused over how you can use the enforcement of a UN resolution as a mandate for war in Lebanon when Israel refuses to follow them itself.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Edit:Correcting the resolution number

I'd like to call you an idiot.

Every piece of Israel is Israel. Golan is so Syria doesnt mess. Palestinians are freeloaders and we ar not occupying they're land. No one lived there and we made it from a swamp into a nice modern country.

Well, thanks for you honest opinion. I'll let the "Palestinians are freeloaders" bit go for the moment, as they do seem to receive a lot of free lead from their occupiers.

However - the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem are outside Israels internationally recognised borders, so yes, you are occupying them.

Yes, people did live there, as the various records of the Ottomans and the more accurate British ones show.

As for "a swamp", you'll find that well over 80% of the Agricultural produce for the years 1946/47 came from Arab owned and worked lands.

In case you were being sarcastic, my apologies. Its very hard to tell with these things.

Hezbollah does a lot of charity work . . .
Yah, look at all the missles they give the Israelis every day :rolleyes: